(12-20-2017, 12:17 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: (12-20-2017, 12:03 PM)Kane Wrote: Ahh... 8 mil was the total deal, that's my bad.
Either way... say we win 1 playoff game and we're done.
Would you people really rather have a rookie QB (likely the 3rd or 4th best QB in the draft from where we pick) and Matt Schaub/Brian Hoyer/Josh McCown going into next season?
We went from wanting to get rid of Bortles and throwing the bank at Cousins/Brees/whoever... to wanting to get frugal and rely on a rookie and some veteran no one wants to pay more than 10 mil to?
My mind is being blown right now.
I've been pro Bortles his entire tenure. I've defended him more than any poster except one. I'm just laying out our two options. If you were the GM and don't like option number one, then take option number two.
Would I rather have Bortles or a rookie 1st round quarterback? In a vacuum, I definitely would take Bortles. However, if I'm the GM and Jackson or Mayfield are sitting there at likely more than $16 million dollars per year cheaper for the next 4 seasons and I know I have more work to do with the offense, then I would have to strongly consider it, especially considering you could probably get a strong return on a Bortles trade.
(12-20-2017, 12:14 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: Glennon’s deal was written in such a way to be basically a one year deal with a team option going forward. All of the guaranteed money was in year one this year. He can be and more than likely will be cut this offseason as I can’t see them paying a backup his salary next year or beyond.
It was a smart contract. It doesn't change the fact that it's a long-term starter contract with an out after a year if it doesn't work. If he worked out, they had a long-term starter on the cheap. If he didn't, or they drafted a quarterback (they did) they could cut bait after a season.
Jackson or Mayfield?
Bro... this ain't 2015, we won't be drafting high enough to get those guys.
Best case scenario, imo, would be a massive trade from 20 something to the teens for a worthy QB and even still...he's a rookie coming from a non traditional college offense.
The team realistically has 2 options, play Bortles at 19 mil or extend him. Cutting him just isn't happening after his sudden turnaround. Even if you're weary of setbacks the team has invested so much time into him I just don't see them cutting him.
I'd prefer they play him at 19 mil for one season. Yeah it's a lot of cash but if he regresses, it's a one and done. An extension, even if it gets down to 14-15 mil per year, Hell even if he takes a discount for 12-13... likely includes more guarantees than 19 mil over the course of the contract.
Bortles has no reason to take a discount though. He can play hardball if he keeps playing well and accept no less than the 19. If he bets on himself and wins, 19 mil will be a drop in the bucket on what he gets the next year. If he loses, he earns 19 mil and likely still gets a contract around 10 mil a year or more from someone else the following season.
Trading Bortles with his 19 mil for one year isn't an option. Extending him and then trading him makes even less sense really.
So a scenario where Bortles is not on the roster would HAVE to be breaking the bank on a FA (which options are even more slim than what was perceived at the beginning of the year) and drafting a QB OR drafting a QB in round 1, with a trade up to get a QB worthy of starting day one, and a cheap veteran back up, which looking at contracts everyone south of 10 mil is pretty much going to be 2016 Bortles or worse.
